Suppr超能文献

一项比较亲水性他汀与亲脂性他汀在急性冠状动脉综合征患者中疗效和安全性的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Hydrophilic Versus Lipophilic Statins in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.

作者信息

Mohamad Rofayda M, Almoayad Safiah A, Alanmy Aseel Ahmed A, Alzahrani Mohammed Abdullah S, Alshahrani Saeed Hassan S, Alharbi Bandar Eid H, Hassan Nahal Hassan A, Baqays Mohammed Khalid A, Asiri Shuruq Talea B, Meftah Fatema Jasim M, Alharthi Abdulrahman Ayed R, Ayoub Saleha Mohammed H, Alharbi Maali Hamdan S

机构信息

Department of Preventive Medicine, King Salman Armed Forces Hospital in Northwestern Region, Tabuk, SAU.

General Practice, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Medicine, Jeddah, SAU.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Sep 2;16(9):e68481. doi: 10.7759/cureus.68481. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Statins differ in their solubility. Some previous studies suggested a difference in clinical efficacy and adverse events between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, and Scopus were systemically searched for articles published from inception until the 18th of July 2024. The primary outcome included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), while the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina (UA), revascularization, stroke, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, and adverse events. The results were pooled as risk ratio (RR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Nine studies were included. Hydrophilic statins showed a significantly higher risk of MACE and UA compared to lipophilic statins (RR 1.11 [95% CI 1.02, 1.21] and 1.30 [95% CI 1.04, 1.62]), but subgroup analysis showed a lack of significant difference between statins of similar intensity (1.01 [95% CI 0.86, 1.18] and 0.98 [0.67, 1.45], respectively). Both statins showed comparable results regarding the occurrence of MI (1.18 [95% CI 0.98, 1.40]), revascularization (1.09 [95% CI 0.99, 1.20]), stroke (1.16 [95% CI 0.80, 1.66]), all-cause mortality (1.13 [95% CI 0.92, 1.38]), cardiovascular deaths (1.14 [95% CI 0.76, 1.72]), adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.03 [95% CI 0.56, 1.90]), increased alanine aminotransferase (0.61 [95% CI 0.32, 1.16]), increased creatine kinase (0.90 [95% CI 0.30, 2.72]), and increased serum creatinine (1.03 [95% CI 0.49, 2.19]). The efficacy and safety of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins are comparable when the cholesterol-lowering intensity of statins is similar. This suggests that intensity, rather than the lipophilicity of the statin, plays a more important role in the secondary prevention of MACE and individual adverse events.

摘要

他汀类药物在溶解性方面存在差异。先前的一些研究表明,亲水性他汀类药物和亲脂性他汀类药物在临床疗效和不良事件方面存在差异。本研究的目的是比较亲水性他汀类药物和亲脂性他汀类药物在急性冠状动脉综合征患者中的疗效和安全性。对MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、科学网和Scopus数据库进行了系统检索,以查找从创刊至2024年7月18日发表的文章。主要结局包括主要不良心脏事件(MACE),次要结局包括心肌梗死(MI)、不稳定型心绞痛(UA)、血运重建、中风、全因死亡率、心血管死亡和不良事件。结果汇总为风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)。纳入了9项研究。与亲脂性他汀类药物相比,亲水性他汀类药物显示出MACE和UA的风险显著更高(RR 1.11 [95% CI 1.02, 1.21]和1.30 [95% CI 1.04, 1.62]),但亚组分析显示,强度相似的他汀类药物之间没有显著差异(分别为1.01 [95% CI 0.86, 1.18]和0.98 [0.67, 1.45])。在MI的发生(1.18 [95% CI 0.98, 1.40])、血运重建(1.09 [95% CI 0.99, 1.20])、中风(1.16 [95% CI 0.80, 1.66])、全因死亡率(1.13 [95% CI 0.92, 1.38])、心血管死亡(1.14 [95% CI 0.76, 1.72])、导致停药的不良事件(1.03 [95% CI 0.56, 1.90])、丙氨酸转氨酶升高(0.61 [95% CI 0.32, 1.16])、肌酸激酶升高(0.90 [95% CI 0.30, 2.72])和血清肌酐升高(1.03 [95% CI 0.49, 2.19])方面,两种他汀类药物显示出相当的结果。当他汀类药物的降胆固醇强度相似时,亲水性他汀类药物和亲脂性他汀类药物的疗效和安全性相当。这表明,在MACE和个体不良事件的二级预防中,强度而非他汀类药物的亲脂性起着更重要的作用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04b0/11446624/3841d87ccc41/cureus-0016-00000068481-i01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验